9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Breach of statutory duty. 2. Breach of legal duty amounting to negligence. 3. Conversion of bills of lading. 4. Liability of the agent (Shaw Wallace) for the acts of the ship-owner. 5. Calculation and validity of the damages claimed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Breach of Statutory Duty: The court held that Shaw Wallace breached its statutory duty under Article III, Rule 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. The agent was obligated to issue bills of lading upon demand by the shipper (NFC). Shaw Wallace's failure to issue these documents in a timely manner resulted in NFC being unable to negotiate the letter of credit before its expiry on 15.1.1979, causing financial loss. 2. Breach of Legal Duty Amounting to Negligence: Shaw Wallace wrongfully refused to issue the bills of lading, which NFC was entitled to upon presenting the mate's receipts. This refusal was intended to assist the charterer (NHH) in its claim against NFC, leading to a breach of legal duty and negligence. The court emphasized that Shaw Wallace's delay in issuing the bills of lading directly caused NFC's inability to realize the value of the goods through the letter of credit. 3. Conversion of Bills of Lading: The court found that Shaw Wallace's actions amounted to conversion of the bills of lading, which are considered documents of title to the goods. By withholding these documents, Shaw Wallace acted inconsistently with NFC's rights, resulting in damages equivalent to the value of the goods. 4. Liability of the Agent (Shaw Wallace) for the Acts of the Ship-Owner: The court clarified that Shaw Wallace was not made liable as an agent for the ship-owner's acts but for its own breach of statutory and legal duties. The agent's liability arose from its failure to issue the bills of lading despite being the designated agent for this task, as evidenced by its conduct and communications with NFC and its agent, Asian Agency. 5. Calculation and Validity of the Damages Claimed: The court rejected Shaw Wallace's contention that the damages claimed by NFC were excessive. Shaw Wallace argued that the value of the goods should be calculated based on the prevailing exchange rate, which they claimed was Rs. 8.10 per US Dollar, equating to Rs. 77,80,110 instead of Rs. 1,05,32,459/22. However, this issue was not raised in the written statement, appeal, or special leave petition, and there was no evidence provided to support the claimed exchange rate. Consequently, the court upheld the original damages awarded. Separate Judgments Delivered: - Civil Appeal No. 7099/2001 (Re: Eastern Grand): The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree against Shaw Wallace, as the demand for bills of lading was made only after the letter of credit had expired, and there was no evidence of earlier demands. - Civil Appeal No. 7100/2001 (Re: Pichit Samut): The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and decree, holding Shaw Wallace liable for the loss caused to NFC due to the delay in issuing the bills of lading. Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with the following outcomes: 1. CA No. 7099/2001 (Re: Eastern Grand): Allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree against Shaw Wallace. 2. CA No. 7100/2001 (Re: Pichit Samut): Dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment and decree. 3. Costs: Each party to bear their respective costs.
|
